Nicola Sturgeon gets ‘sympathetic’ reception in Brussels over Brexit

[bkkcanuck8]

The Scottish people should be so angry of this move by their politicians.

I watched question time where Alex Salmond (sitting on the side of stay in the EU) being critical of the Brexit choice by the British people as he believed the wrong drivers led to the decision to leave. However, he is criticising the British people (specifically the English) for doing exactly what he wanted the Scottish people to do which was vote for independence,,(Scotland from the UK, the UK from the EU). Well the Scottish people did not but the UK people did.

I accept that the Scottish people voted to stay within the EU but the fact is Scotland is part of the UK and the overall majority must prevail, the people voted to stay in.

But, what I find worrying is the shameful knee jerk reaction by Scottish politicians quite literally running to the EU screaming "it wasn't us, it wasn't us!"

Would it not have been better to wait before running to the EU with your tail between your legs and telling them Scotland wanted to remain part of the EU independently? I can just see the discussion "it wan't us Sir, it was them pesky English Southerners". Do they think Scotland will suddenly have much more freedom in its decision making?

And would it not have been better for the Scottish people if their Politicians waited until the actually saw what deal the UK strikes with the EU first? Surely this would have been better for the Scottish people. What if the UK gains open access to the free market, retains freedom of movement but also loses a lot of bureaucracy over it's internal management? Would this not be better for Scotland as well?

This feels like decision making based upon nothing but the will of a few to divide the UK, gain independance and stick it to the English, irrespective of the real consequences for the Scottish people.

I am all for what ever the Scottish people want, if they want to leave the UK and then try and become on independent nation in the EU then good luck to them. It's just a shame there are buffoons running to Brussels like children in blind panic on behalf of the Scottish people.

A lot of the argument that according to exit polls was the reason why Scotland is still part of the UK is that there was a lot of discussion that if you leave the UK and the UK stays part of the EU then you are out of the EU.... which infers that if you vote to stay, we will all stay (which is what the polls were indicating at the time). Additionally there were a number of promises that were made that the exit polls indicated were crucial in the decision making, and I am pretty sure they have not been kept. i.e. certain devolution promises that i am pretty sure have not been kept -- i.e. bickering about devolving the powers to all regions, then some regions saying they don;t want it and if they all don't have it then it is not appropriate to hand over to Scotland because the regions should all be treated equally.

So the vote now really is no longer valid - Scotland was deceived (may have not originally intended to but they were - which is why many more are frustrated and angry with the UK.

[Baerboxer]

You are wrong. Scotland is not a member of the EU. It is a member of the UK, a region of the UK and has no entitlement to currently be a EU member.

If the UK leaves, Scotland, like other parts of the UK will leave, Should Scotland become an independent country, and that is a matter for the UK not Scotland, then it could at that point apply to join the EU. France, Spain in particular have made this very clear.

Right now Scotland is a region within the UK - therefore it is not entertained and is not appropriate to discuss. It is what I have been saying. The UK has indicated a referendum vote for separation is acceptable as a means to leave the United Kingdom (otherwise there never would have been a referendum). Once Scotland votes for independence it is no longer a region within another country and it becomes an equal which then discussions which were not appropriate become appropriate. If the UK had never entertained the option of referendum leading to independence -- then it would have been extremely difficult.

Circumstances change, what is not appropriate suddenly becomes appropriate. Until that time they are going to stick to that narrative.

If it happens after the UK notifies but before negotiations complete.... anything can happen.

Referendums have no legal consequence in the UK. They gauge public opinion. There is a debate going on with constitutional law experts as to whether a UK government can, on the basis of a referendum, act on the decision; or if parliament must first debate and then vote on the issue with the government following the instructions of parliament. The majority of experts are currently favoring the latter. Parliament must vote and the government must follow the vote. The UK is a representative not direct democracy. Politicians would then face accountability for their votes in the next election.

Cameron and a lot of others were using this referendum for other reasons. None expected this result. They thought wrong. Now, seeing as the vast majority of MPs back remain, and no one in the government actually wants to test trying to implement the decision without parliaments approval their is a crisis. Cameron has just pushed the problem to his successor.

Scotland, and more specifically Sturgeon cannot call another independence referendum. Only the UK government can despite her posturing and threats.

The EU position is very clear. No informal talks. No talks with the UK until article 50 is invoked. No talks with Scotland whilst it is part of the UK. That position is unlikely to change if the UK does invoke Article 50. Spain and France have made their position very clear and the Spanish PM suggests others have the same position.

[RuamRudy]

It cannot formally enter negotiations and cannot be part of the EU until their no longer part of the UK, but the tone about what is achievable assuming that is the itself about whether Scotland would be entertained would be able to change. Until the UK notifies the EU of leaving -- there is nothing to talk about with regards to Scotland staying since they are already a member.... In fact the odds of the UK actually leaving are extremely low at this point. If the UK is another Norway where there is still free movement of labour, and it abides by EU regulations and it sends dues to the EU and the only thing that changes is that the UK has no say.... nothing would actually change for Scotland - it has no independent voice in the EU now and would have none then.... but everything else is the same. The leave campaign is a complete fraud, all indications are it will not leave.... just lose it's representation.

You are wrong. Scotland is not a member of the EU. It is a member of the UK, a region of the UK and has no entitlement to currently be a EU member.

If the UK leaves, Scotland, like other parts of the UK will leave, Should Scotland become an independent country, and that is a matter for the UK not Scotland, then it could at that point apply to join the EU. France, Spain in particular have made this very clear.

Maybe the ideal solution is for England to leave the UK - that would be nice and clean for all involved.

That would not be acceptable to the international community. Remember all the debt is the United Kingdoms, and Scotland does not have the population size to handle it. The debt does not get transferred, an agreement has to be reached with the creditors for Scotland to pay it's fair share of interest / principal to the United Kingdom which then handles the debt.... or an agreement has to be made with the creditors to allow the debt to be effectively sold.

The argument during the Scottish referendum was that were Scotland to leave the UK, it would be required to assume its share of UK debt - nobody disputed that, although Salmond did (foolishly, in my eyes) raise it as a possibilty if we were prevented from using the pound.

If this would have been accepted were Scotland to secede from the UK, would the same principal not stand if England was to do the same - split the debt equally?

[Baerboxer]

Agree with almost all you write. You have to remember that Sturgeon and to a slightly lesser extent Salmond are extreme racists when it comes to anything English. It's another example of the double standards they apply to everything - we're not racist just hate the English; we love democracy as long as we win; we want to be part of any Brexit discussions - but will run off and try and get our own secret ones with the EU.

Whilst she was, as is the European way, treated with good manners, the French, Spanish and Mr. Tusk have made the position clear. She ran to "sir" and sir sent her back with nothing. But of course she'll hail this as a great Scottish victory achieved through her even greater leadership!

The decision of Scottish independence is a UK matter, the whole UK. Remember Stugeon doesn't speak for the majority of the Scottish people on independence, and not for the 38% in Scotland who voted to leave the EU either. But running off to Europe is typical of her arrogant self important one agenda behavior.

Please point out ONE thing that backs up your claim that Sturgeon and Salmond are "extreme racists when it comes to anything English".

Just read their comments for yourself. preferable in an objective fashion.

[RuamRudy]

You are wrong. Scotland is not a member of the EU. It is a member of the UK, a region of the UK and has no entitlement to currently be a EU member.

If the UK leaves, Scotland, like other parts of the UK will leave, Should Scotland become an independent country, and that is a matter for the UK not Scotland, then it could at that point apply to join the EU. France, Spain in particular have made this very clear.

Right now Scotland is a region within the UK - therefore it is not entertained and is not appropriate to discuss. It is what I have been saying. The UK has indicated a referendum vote for separation is acceptable as a means to leave the United Kingdom (otherwise there never would have been a referendum). Once Scotland votes for independence it is no longer a region within another country and it becomes an equal which then discussions which were not appropriate become appropriate. If the UK had never entertained the option of referendum leading to independence -- then it would have been extremely difficult.

Circumstances change, what is not appropriate suddenly becomes appropriate. Until that time they are going to stick to that narrative.

If it happens after the UK notifies but before negotiations complete.... anything can happen.

Referendums have no legal consequence in the UK. They gauge public opinion. There is a debate going on with constitutional law experts as to whether a UK government can, on the basis of a referendum, act on the decision; or if parliament must first debate and then vote on the issue with the government following the instructions of parliament. The majority of experts are currently favoring the latter. Parliament must vote and the government must follow the vote. The UK is a representative not direct democracy. Politicians would then face accountability for their votes in the next election.

Cameron and a lot of others were using this referendum for other reasons. None expected this result. They thought wrong. Now, seeing as the vast majority of MPs back remain, and no one in the government actually wants to test trying to implement the decision without parliaments approval their is a crisis. Cameron has just pushed the problem to his successor.

Scotland, and more specifically Sturgeon cannot call another independence referendum. Only the UK government can despite her posturing and threats.

The EU position is very clear. No informal talks. No talks with the UK until article 50 is invoked. No talks with Scotland whilst it is part of the UK. That position is unlikely to change if the UK does invoke Article 50. Spain and France have made their position very clear and the Spanish PM suggests others have the same position.

The Scotland Act 1998 specifically requires that Scots law is in harmony with EU law. In order for the UK to extricate itself from the EU, that section of the act would need to be repealed. There is no way that the SNP will do that so Westminster must risk the biggest constitutional crisis the UK has ever seen by directly interfering with Scots law. Interesting times ahead.

[RuamRudy]

Please point out ONE thing that backs up your claim that Sturgeon and Salmond are "extreme racists when it comes to anything English".

Just read their comments for yourself. preferable in an objective fashion.

I have done. I am extremely interested in the SNP's vision of civic nationalism so I pay a lot of attention to what they say. I also believe that I am an objective person so I am confident that you are wrong.

You were so emphatic with your statement, it must be very easy for you to pick an example - or is your response above a cop out because you know that you are incorrect?

[bkkcanuck8]

Referendums have no legal consequence in the UK. They gauge public opinion. There is a debate going on with constitutional law experts as to whether a UK government can, on the basis of a referendum, act on the decision; or if parliament must first debate and then vote on the issue with the government following the instructions of parliament. The majority of experts are currently favoring the latter. Parliament must vote and the government must follow the vote. The UK is a representative not direct democracy. Politicians would then face accountability for their votes in the next election.

Referendums usually don't have direct legal standing, but they are not "just to gauge public opinion". The reason why a referendum does not have legal standing is that the question stated is often one sentence and kept simple for the sake of people being able to actually understand what they are voting on. The purpose of a referendum is take a decision directly to the people - with the understanding (at least before; before you get dishonourable politicians spinning the crap out of it) that once the people have voted then the politicians and the civil service have to actually craft legislation and constitutional changes to make it happen.

If it was just to gauge public opinion, you hire a pollster or create a Royal Commission which then can be shelved or acted upon. Referendums are expensive - and if you are going to say they are just advisory - why the heck would you actually call one....

You are being completely disrespectful to every single one of the voters who took time out of their schedule to participate in....

All that is spin after the fact by people who say they believe in democracy - but really don't give a sh*t about democracy unless it serves their purpose.

[Baerboxer]

It cannot formally enter negotiations and cannot be part of the EU until their no longer part of the UK, but the tone about what is achievable assuming that is the itself about whether Scotland would be entertained would be able to change. Until the UK notifies the EU of leaving -- there is nothing to talk about with regards to Scotland staying since they are already a member.... In fact the odds of the UK actually leaving are extremely low at this point. If the UK is another Norway where there is still free movement of labour, and it abides by EU regulations and it sends dues to the EU and the only thing that changes is that the UK has no say.... nothing would actually change for Scotland - it has no independent voice in the EU now and would have none then.... but everything else is the same. The leave campaign is a complete fraud, all indications are it will not leave.... just lose it's representation.

You are wrong. Scotland is not a member of the EU. It is a member of the UK, a region of the UK and has no entitlement to currently be a EU member.

If the UK leaves, Scotland, like other parts of the UK will leave, Should Scotland become an independent country, and that is a matter for the UK not Scotland, then it could at that point apply to join the EU. France, Spain in particular have made this very clear.

Maybe the ideal solution is for England to leave the UK - that would be nice and clean for all involved.

Why is it Scottish Nationalist only think democracy applies to their view?

Wales also voted to leave. If you want to do it on a regional basis 2 regions want to stay, to leave. A tie. If you do it simply on the number of votes cast then the majority of the country want to leave. Get over it, Scotland isn't and independent country and the majority of Scots voted to remain that way in the once in a generation referendum that now the SNP want to try again, and presumably again and again and again until the get a result they like.

Perhaps what might be fair is for the politicians in Westminster to actually do their jobs. Parliament has to decide, and then be accountable through elections what the country must do. So ignore all the chancers and opportunists, with their own agendas and tail wagging the dog histrionics until that very important issue is put to bed.

As for Scotland - any future referendums are a matter for the UK government, not wee Nicola. Time she was put in her place. Perhaps should the UK government decide another referendum on Scottish inclusion in the UK is desirable they might consider making it a UK wide referendum. Then indeed, Scotland may well find itself outside the UK, and outside the EU. Good luck with the EU application and meeting the criteria.

[Baerboxer]

Referendums have no legal consequence in the UK. They gauge public opinion. There is a debate going on with constitutional law experts as to whether a UK government can, on the basis of a referendum, act on the decision; or if parliament must first debate and then vote on the issue with the government following the instructions of parliament. The majority of experts are currently favoring the latter. Parliament must vote and the government must follow the vote. The UK is a representative not direct democracy. Politicians would then face accountability for their votes in the next election.

Referendums usually don't have direct legal standing, but they are not "just to gauge public opinion". The reason why a referendum does not have legal standing is that the question stated is often one sentence and kept simple for the sake of people being able to actually understand what they are voting on. The purpose of a referendum is take a decision directly to the people - with the understanding (at least before; before you get dishonourable politicians spinning the crap out of it) that once the people have voted then the politicians and the civil service have to actually craft legislation and constitutional changes to make it happen.

If it was just to gauge public opinion, you hire a pollster or create a Royal Commission which then can be shelved or acted upon. Referendums are expensive - and if you are going to say they are just advisory - why the heck would you actually call one....

You are being completely disrespectful to every single one of the voters who took time out of their schedule to participate in....

All that is spin after the fact by people who say they believe in democracy - but really don't give a sh*t about democracy unless it serves their purpose.

Your understanding of UK constitutional law is woeful, but still you persist.

I am not being disrespectful to anyone - your ignorance of UK law, parliamentary procedure and what a representative democracy is, and apparent lack of interest in learning is not helping you avoid repeating inaccuracies like a parrot.

The law is the law. Amazing how someone thinks democracy does not require the adherence to law and calls pointing out the law spin.

[RuamRudy]

You are wrong. Scotland is not a member of the EU. It is a member of the UK, a region of the UK and has no entitlement to currently be a EU member.

If the UK leaves, Scotland, like other parts of the UK will leave, Should Scotland become an independent country, and that is a matter for the UK not Scotland, then it could at that point apply to join the EU. France, Spain in particular have made this very clear.

Maybe the ideal solution is for England to leave the UK - that would be nice and clean for all involved.

Why is it Scottish Nationalist only think democracy applies to their view?

Wales also voted to leave. If you want to do it on a regional basis 2 regions want to stay, to leave. A tie. If you do it simply on the number of votes cast then the majority of the country want to leave. Get over it, Scotland isn't and independent country and the majority of Scots voted to remain that way in the once in a generation referendum that now the SNP want to try again, and presumably again and again and again until the get a result they like.

Perhaps what might be fair is for the politicians in Westminster to actually do their jobs. Parliament has to decide, and then be accountable through elections what the country must do. So ignore all the chancers and opportunists, with their own agendas and tail wagging the dog histrionics until that very important issue is put to bed.

As for Scotland - any future referendums are a matter for the UK government, not wee Nicola. Time she was put in her place. Perhaps should the UK government decide another referendum on Scottish inclusion in the UK is desirable they might consider making it a UK wide referendum. Then indeed, Scotland may well find itself outside the UK, and outside the EU. Good luck with the EU application and meeting the criteria.

This once in a generation thing - I never said it, and nobody asked me before it was banded around so I am not bound by it.

We have been waiting for years for Westminster to sort itself out, and what happens - you give the Tories a majority? Sorry, we have waited too long as it is, and this Brexit vote was enough of a wake-up call for people to see that Scotland is better of alone. Four successive polls have shown that the majority of the country wants independence - now the SNP needs to build on that for a better future for our country.

[Baerboxer]

Please point out ONE thing that backs up your claim that Sturgeon and Salmond are "extreme racists when it comes to anything English".

Just read their comments for yourself. preferable in an objective fashion.

I have done. I am extremely interested in the SNP's vision of civic nationalism so I pay a lot of attention to what they say. I also believe that I am an objective person so I am confident that you are wrong.

You were so emphatic with your statement, it must be very easy for you to pick an example - or is your response above a cop out because you know that you are incorrect?

Nope. But I refuse to do anyone's research for them. I ain't your or anyone else's lackey.

Research is easy enough it you really want to find things. I try to be objective too. Salmond was always the same for years and years when the SNP were considered a fringe party joke. Now they are mainstream and listen or read the amount of times they contradict themselves and make covert and occasionally more overt anti English comments. It is the biggest driver among many of their supporters whose ancestry gives clues to why that should be. Actions speak louder than words.

But objectiveness is arguable subjective to an individuals world views and interpretations. If I try to judge the SNP administration and don't think the do a good job of running Scotland - now many would agree and many would disagree. That would depend on where you see priorities.

As for Brexit, more people in England voted to remain than in Scotland. A considerable number of people voted to remain in Wales and the majority of those in NI want to remain. Why hasn't Scotland's fist minister been talking with these people. Sure she met with Mayor Khan, ( a glorified councilor like her) and Gibraltar's first minister, who is very concerned, and where a vast majority want to stay. But England as a whole, Wales, and NI - not apparently interested.

She, IMO, thought she could get a quick back door deal with the EU, tie that up to being independent, "we can stay if we vote for independence" and push another quick referendum to the result she wanted, Ain't gonna happen.

[Baerboxer]

You are wrong. Scotland is not a member of the EU. It is a member of the UK, a region of the UK and has no entitlement to currently be a EU member.

If the UK leaves, Scotland, like other parts of the UK will leave, Should Scotland become an independent country, and that is a matter for the UK not Scotland, then it could at that point apply to join the EU. France, Spain in particular have made this very clear.

Maybe the ideal solution is for England to leave the UK - that would be nice and clean for all involved.

Why is it Scottish Nationalist only think democracy applies to their view?

Wales also voted to leave. If you want to do it on a regional basis 2 regions want to stay, to leave. A tie. If you do it simply on the number of votes cast then the majority of the country want to leave. Get over it, Scotland isn't and independent country and the majority of Scots voted to remain that way in the once in a generation referendum that now the SNP want to try again, and presumably again and again and again until the get a result they like.

Perhaps what might be fair is for the politicians in Westminster to actually do their jobs. Parliament has to decide, and then be accountable through elections what the country must do. So ignore all the chancers and opportunists, with their own agendas and tail wagging the dog histrionics until that very important issue is put to bed.

As for Scotland - any future referendums are a matter for the UK government, not wee Nicola. Time she was put in her place. Perhaps should the UK government decide another referendum on Scottish inclusion in the UK is desirable they might consider making it a UK wide referendum. Then indeed, Scotland may well find itself outside the UK, and outside the EU. Good luck with the EU application and meeting the criteria.

This once in a generation thing - I never said it, and nobody asked me before it was banded around so I am not bound by it.

We have been waiting for years for Westminster to sort itself out, and what happens - you give the Tories a majority? Sorry, we have waited too long as it is, and this Brexit vote was enough of a wake-up call for people to see that Scotland is better of alone. Four successive polls have shown that the majority of the country wants independence - now the SNP needs to build on that for a better future for our country.

What? Well no one asked me if I wanted multiple referendums, changing the UK representative parliamentary constitution so I am not bound by any referendum results.

Polls showed Labor winning the last general election, or a hung parliament or a coalition prospect. Polls are like statistics - use them as a drunk uses a lamp post for support not illumination.

Nicola will talk up her visit to Brussels, these poll results, and whine on about independence - that is the whole point of her political party, it's main focus. That's her job as leader. Scotland may or may not be better being in or out the UK. But I seriously doubt it would be better either way being governed by the SNP.

[bkkcanuck8]

Referendums have no legal consequence in the UK. They gauge public opinion. There is a debate going on with constitutional law experts as to whether a UK government can, on the basis of a referendum, act on the decision; or if parliament must first debate and then vote on the issue with the government following the instructions of parliament. The majority of experts are currently favoring the latter. Parliament must vote and the government must follow the vote. The UK is a representative not direct democracy. Politicians would then face accountability for their votes in the next election.

Referendums usually don't have direct legal standing, but they are not "just to gauge public opinion". The reason why a referendum does not have legal standing is that the question stated is often one sentence and kept simple for the sake of people being able to actually understand what they are voting on. The purpose of a referendum is take a decision directly to the people - with the understanding (at least before; before you get dishonourable politicians spinning the crap out of it) that once the people have voted then the politicians and the civil service have to actually craft legislation and constitutional changes to make it happen.

If it was just to gauge public opinion, you hire a pollster or create a Royal Commission which then can be shelved or acted upon. Referendums are expensive - and if you are going to say they are just advisory - why the heck would you actually call one....

You are being completely disrespectful to every single one of the voters who took time out of their schedule to participate in....

All that is spin after the fact by people who say they believe in democracy - but really don't give a sh*t about democracy unless it serves their purpose.

Your understanding of UK constitutional law is woeful, but still you persist.

I am not being disrespectful to anyone - your ignorance of UK law, parliamentary procedure and what a representative democracy is, and apparent lack of interest in learning is not helping you avoid repeating inaccuracies like a parrot.

The law is the law. Amazing how someone thinks democracy does not require the adherence to law and calls pointing out the law spin.

At no time in the legislation did they indicate it was only advisory... and yes there is wiggle room on the world "should", I would argue that the intent was clear and at no time did anyone indicate that it was advisory.... until they lost.

Cameron himself (the one that sponsored the legislation) has not indicated it was advisory, in fact everything he has said even after has indicated that the intent was not advisory. Some talking heads after the fact are now spinning. In fact he has told that as a result of the referendum the UK WILL be leaving the EU. He just resigned so that he himself would not have to handle the process.

The referendum

(1)A referendum is to be held on whether the United Kingdom should remain a member of the European Union.

(2)The Secretary of State must, by regulations, appoint the day on which the referendum is to be held.

(3)The day appointed under subsection (2)—

(a)must be no later than 31 December 2017,

(b)must not be 5 May 2016, and

©must not be 4 May 2017.

(4)The question that is to appear on the ballot papers is—

“Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?”

(5)The alternative answers to that question that are to appear on the ballot papers are—

“Remain a member of the European Union

Leave the European Union”.

(6)In Wales, there must also appear on the ballot papers—

(a)the following Welsh version of the question—

“A ddylai’r Deyrnas Unedig aros yn aelod o’r Undeb Ewropeaidd neu adael yr Undeb Ewropeaidd?”, and

(b)the following Welsh versions of the alternative answers—

“Aros yn aelod o’r Undeb Ewropeaidd

Gadael yr Undeb Ewropeaidd”.

[RuamRudy]

Please point out ONE thing that backs up your claim that Sturgeon and Salmond are "extreme racists when it comes to anything English".

Just read their comments for yourself. preferable in an objective fashion.

I have done. I am extremely interested in the SNP's vision of civic nationalism so I pay a lot of attention to what they say. I also believe that I am an objective person so I am confident that you are wrong.

You were so emphatic with your statement, it must be very easy for you to pick an example - or is your response above a cop out because you know that you are incorrect?

Nope. But I refuse to do anyone's research for them. I ain't your or anyone else's lackey.

Research is easy enough it you really want to find things. I try to be objective too. Salmond was always the same for years and years when the SNP were considered a fringe party joke. Now they are mainstream and listen or read the amount of times they contradict themselves and make covert and occasionally more overt anti English comments. It is the biggest driver among many of their supporters whose ancestry gives clues to why that should be. Actions speak louder than words.

But objectiveness is arguable subjective to an individuals world views and interpretations. If I try to judge the SNP administration and don't think the do a good job of running Scotland - now many would agree and many would disagree. That would depend on where you see priorities.

As for Brexit, more people in England voted to remain than in Scotland. A considerable number of people voted to remain in Wales and the majority of those in NI want to remain. Why hasn't Scotland's fist minister been talking with these people. Sure she met with Mayor Khan, ( a glorified councilor like her) and Gibraltar's first minister, who is very concerned, and where a vast majority want to stay. But England as a whole, Wales, and NI - not apparently interested.

She, IMO, thought she could get a quick back door deal with the EU, tie that up to being independent, "we can stay if we vote for independence" and push another quick referendum to the result she wanted, Ain't gonna happen.

That is a long winded way of saying 'cop out'.

[RuamRudy]

Maybe the ideal solution is for England to leave the UK - that would be nice and clean for all involved.

Why is it Scottish Nationalist only think democracy applies to their view?

Wales also voted to leave. If you want to do it on a regional basis 2 regions want to stay, to leave. A tie. If you do it simply on the number of votes cast then the majority of the country want to leave. Get over it, Scotland isn't and independent country and the majority of Scots voted to remain that way in the once in a generation referendum that now the SNP want to try again, and presumably again and again and again until the get a result they like.

Perhaps what might be fair is for the politicians in Westminster to actually do their jobs. Parliament has to decide, and then be accountable through elections what the country must do. So ignore all the chancers and opportunists, with their own agendas and tail wagging the dog histrionics until that very important issue is put to bed.

As for Scotland - any future referendums are a matter for the UK government, not wee Nicola. Time she was put in her place. Perhaps should the UK government decide another referendum on Scottish inclusion in the UK is desirable they might consider making it a UK wide referendum. Then indeed, Scotland may well find itself outside the UK, and outside the EU. Good luck with the EU application and meeting the criteria.

This once in a generation thing - I never said it, and nobody asked me before it was banded around so I am not bound by it.

We have been waiting for years for Westminster to sort itself out, and what happens - you give the Tories a majority? Sorry, we have waited too long as it is, and this Brexit vote was enough of a wake-up call for people to see that Scotland is better of alone. Four successive polls have shown that the majority of the country wants independence - now the SNP needs to build on that for a better future for our country.

What? Well no one asked me if I wanted multiple referendums, changing the UK representative parliamentary constitution so I am not bound by any referendum results.

Polls showed Labor winning the last general election, or a hung parliament or a coalition prospect. Polls are like statistics - use them as a drunk uses a lamp post for support not illumination.

Nicola will talk up her visit to Brussels, these poll results, and whine on about independence - that is the whole point of her political party, it's main focus. That's her job as leader. Scotland may or may not be better being in or out the UK. But I seriously doubt it would be better either way being governed by the SNP.

Exactly! So while it is your democratic right to object to the demand for another referendum, it is also mine to demand another, and not be beholden to someone else's statement of once in a generation.

I can just about remember the SNP posters of the 1970s where they stated 'Vote for us and we'll resign' - that is what will happen when we get independence. The SNP is a very broad church with one unifying goal. Once that goal is achieved, you will see the congregation reassemble in many different ways. Scotland after independence will not be ruled by the SNP.

[happy Joe]

Nicola Sturgeon knows exactly that Brexit concerns all components of the United Kingdom and the Scots will have to accompany the English towards the exit.

She only picked the assurance of being well received if it occurs later in the name of an independent nation.

In this the warm welcome she received leaves no doubt, and she will can use this agreement of principle for the next independence campaign.

[RuamRudy]

Just reported on the SNP-hating Guardian:

"Discussions on transitional arrangements for an independent Scotland to remain in the European Union (EU) after the UK leaves are taking place in Brussels, a former senior adviser to the European Commission (EC) has disclosed.

As the Press Association reports, Dr Kirsty Hughes told MSPs discussions are taking place about putting Scotland in a “transitional holding pen” after Brexit to avoid “an absurd out and then in process”."

[SgtRock]

How will this go down with the Scottish electorate

However, she warned the EU “does not want a mini-UK” and said Scotland is unlikely to keep the UK’s “awkward squad” opt-outs of the euro, justice and home affairs and the UK budget rebate.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2016/jun/30/brexit-live-theresa-may-and-boris-johnson-set-to-announce-leadership-bids

Adopt the euro

EU dictated justice system

EU dictated Home Affairs Policy

Sounds really independent to me

Edited June 30, 2016 by SgtRock

[RuamRudy]

How will this go down with the Scottish electorate

However, she warned the EU “does not want a mini-UK” and said Scotland is unlikely to keep the UK’s “awkward squad” opt-outs of the euro, justice and home affairs and the UK budget rebate.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2016/jun/30/brexit-live-theresa-may-and-boris-johnson-set-to-announce-leadership-bids

Adopt the euro

EU dictated justice system

EU dictated Home Affairs Policy

Sounds really independent to me

Euro? We would need to meet the requirements before we started to use it so we are some way off that.

EU justice system? One big concern with regards Brexit was being withrdrawn from the ECHR and subject to the dystopian future that Teresa May wants to impose on the country, so maybe not so bad to keep the EU umbrella. If you Trust Teresa to look after you, great.

EU home affairs policy? Currently home affairs are reserved by London, where we are but a mere afterthought. An independent Scotland in the EU will be a fully equal member and, thus, have an equal say in EU policy.

[bkkcanuck8]

How will this go down with the Scottish electorate

However, she warned the EU “does not want a mini-UK” and said Scotland is unlikely to keep the UK’s “awkward squad” opt-outs of the euro, justice and home affairs and the UK budget rebate.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2016/jun/30/brexit-live-theresa-may-and-boris-johnson-set-to-announce-leadership-bids

Adopt the euro

EU dictated justice system

EU dictated Home Affairs Policy

Sounds really independent to me

Euro? We would need to meet the requirements before we started to use it so we are some way off that.

EU justice system? One big concern with regards Brexit was being withrdrawn from the ECHR and subject to the dystopian future that Teresa May wants to impose on the country, so maybe not so bad to keep the EU umbrella. If you Trust Teresa to look after you, great.

EU home affairs policy? Currently home affairs are reserved by London, where we are but a mere afterthought. An independent Scotland in the EU will be a fully equal member and, thus, have an equal say in EU policy.

I was looking over the Euro and as long as Scotland's budgetary policy is committed to match the requirements.... the rest of the requirements are actually easier to meet if they go directly to the Euro from the GBP than it would be if they had to create their own currency then qualify. Since Scotland has no real central bank that can be handed over directly. Price stability for requirement is fine. It all comes down to public finances. It would be stupid to restructure the economy twice which would have to happen if they went to their own currency and then joined the Euro.

[GAZZPA]

The Scottish people should be so angry of this move by their politicians.

I watched question time where Alex Salmond (sitting on the side of stay in the EU) being critical of the Brexit choice by the British people as he believed the wrong drivers led to the decision to leave. However, he is criticising the British people (specifically the English) for doing exactly what he wanted the Scottish people to do which was vote for independence,,(Scotland from the UK, the UK from the EU). Well the Scottish people did not but the UK people did.

I accept that the Scottish people voted to stay within the EU but the fact is Scotland is part of the UK and the overall majority must prevail, the people voted to stay in.

But, what I find worrying is the shameful knee jerk reaction by Scottish politicians quite literally running to the EU screaming "it wasn't us, it wasn't us!"

Would it not have been better to wait before running to the EU with your tail between your legs and telling them Scotland wanted to remain part of the EU independently? I can just see the discussion "it wan't us Sir, it was them pesky English Southerners". Do they think Scotland will suddenly have much more freedom in its decision making?

And would it not have been better for the Scottish people if their Politicians waited until the actually saw what deal the UK strikes with the EU first? Surely this would have been better for the Scottish people. What if the UK gains open access to the free market, retains freedom of movement but also loses a lot of bureaucracy over it's internal management? Would this not be better for Scotland as well?

This feels like decision making based upon nothing but the will of a few to divide the UK, gain independance and stick it to the English, irrespective of the real consequences for the Scottish people.

I am all for what ever the Scottish people want, if they want to leave the UK and then try and become on independent nation in the EU then good luck to them. It's just a shame there are buffoons running to Brussels like children in blind panic on behalf of the Scottish people.

Agree with almost all you write. You have to remember that Sturgeon and to a slightly lesser extent Salmond are extreme racists when it comes to anything English. It's another example of the double standards they apply to everything - we're not racist just hate the English; we love democracy as long as we win; we want to be part of any Brexit discussions - but will run off and try and get our own secret ones with the EU.

Whilst she was, as is the European way, treated with good manners, the French, Spanish and Mr. Tusk have made the position clear. She ran to "sir" and sir sent her back with nothing. But of course she'll hail this as a great Scottish victory achieved through her even greater leadership!

The decision of Scottish independence is a UK matter, the whole UK. Remember Stugeon doesn't speak for the majority of the Scottish people on independence, and not for the 38% in Scotland who voted to leave the EU either. But running off to Europe is typical of her arrogant self important one agenda behavior.

Agree with all your points. I mean to offend nobody but Scotland is part of the UK and as such it needs to stop feeling so hard done by all the time.

It almost feels like the course of action Sctoland takes is the opposite to one the English (or UK as a whole) take, irrespective of what that is. UK says white, Scottish politicians say black. It's a silly game and the Scottish people deserve better.

[GAZZPA]

The Scottish people should be so angry of this move by their politicians.

I watched question time where Alex Salmond (sitting on the side of stay in the EU) being critical of the Brexit choice by the British people as he believed the wrong drivers led to the decision to leave. However, he is criticising the British people (specifically the English) for doing exactly what he wanted the Scottish people to do which was vote for independence,,(Scotland from the UK, the UK from the EU). Well the Scottish people did not but the UK people did.

I accept that the Scottish people voted to stay within the EU but the fact is Scotland is part of the UK and the overall majority must prevail, the people voted to stay in.

But, what I find worrying is the shameful knee jerk reaction by Scottish politicians quite literally running to the EU screaming "it wasn't us, it wasn't us!"

Would it not have been better to wait before running to the EU with your tail between your legs and telling them Scotland wanted to remain part of the EU independently? I can just see the discussion "it wan't us Sir, it was them pesky English Southerners". Do they think Scotland will suddenly have much more freedom in its decision making?

And would it not have been better for the Scottish people if their Politicians waited until the actually saw what deal the UK strikes with the EU first? Surely this would have been better for the Scottish people. What if the UK gains open access to the free market, retains freedom of movement but also loses a lot of bureaucracy over it's internal management? Would this not be better for Scotland as well?

This feels like decision making based upon nothing but the will of a few to divide the UK, gain independance and stick it to the English, irrespective of the real consequences for the Scottish people.

I am all for what ever the Scottish people want, if they want to leave the UK and then try and become on independent nation in the EU then good luck to them. It's just a shame there are buffoons running to Brussels like children in blind panic on behalf of the Scottish people.

A lot of the argument that according to exit polls was the reason why Scotland is still part of the UK is that there was a lot of discussion that if you leave the UK and the UK stays part of the EU then you are out of the EU.... which infers that if you vote to stay, we will all stay (which is what the polls were indicating at the time). Additionally there were a number of promises that were made that the exit polls indicated were crucial in the decision making, and I am pretty sure they have not been kept. i.e. certain devolution promises that i am pretty sure have not been kept -- i.e. bickering about devolving the powers to all regions, then some regions saying they don;t want it and if they all don't have it then it is not appropriate to hand over to Scotland because the regions should all be treated equally.

So the vote now really is no longer valid - Scotland was deceived (may have not originally intended to but they were - which is why many more are frustrated and angry with the UK.

I do not believe at all that Scotland were deceived in any way, the definition of deception is to intentionally mislead. I guess your statement says it all when you say Scotland is angry with the UK, Scotland is "part" of the UK! Is it angry with itself? Or is this just another example of how Scottish politicians refuse to actually behave like a member of the UK and continue with this ridiculous anti English nonsense.

It seems Scottish politicians spend more time slagging off the UK, (or more specifically England) then actually behaving like a member of the United Kingdom. The Scottish people voted to stay in the UK so Scotland should now be supporting the democratic decision to leave the EU (even if some disagree, thats democracy) and start putting energy into playing its part in shaping the deals that need to happen for the benefit of the UK (of which it belongs). I also believe that 38% of the Scottish people did vote to leave the EU, ok not a majority but still a sizeable amount of people. I wonder what Nicola Sturgeon would have said and done had 51% of Scots voted to leave? Would she still be running to Brussels or would she actually play her part in influencing the trade deals that now need to be done. i suspect she would still be in Brussels claiming that the Scottish were deceived,,, pathetic.

This move by Nicola Sturgeon does nothing for Scotalnd, the UK or the EU, she has achieved absolutely nothing, zero, zilch. All she may have done is potentially alienate Scotland from the UK (of which the Scottish people voted to be a member). To me she looks like a woman with her own agenda and screw what is best for the Scottish people and indeed the UK as a whole.

So, time to stop bickering, stop playing "we hate the English" and grow up. It's time for the UK to work as a whole in creating the best EU trading deal for the UK people that's, England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales.

[samran]

How will this go down with the Scottish electorate

However, she warned the EU does not want a mini-UK and said Scotland is unlikely to keep the UKs awkward squad opt-outs of the euro, justice and home affairs and the UK budget rebate.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2016/jun/30/brexit-live-theresa-may-and-boris-johnson-set-to-announce-leadership-bids

Adopt the euro

EU dictated justice system

EU dictated Home Affairs Policy

Sounds really independent to me

Preferable to being ruled by the English it seems....

[GAZZPA]

Scotland never really felt the impact of immigration from the EU ---basically because even the people from the poorer eastern Euro countries would prefer to live in London or England than there.

If that is the reason for the difference -- how do you explain the place with the most "affected by" immigration (London) voted to remain?

Because anyone sensible knows that the immigration issue, (and there is an issue for sure) is not actually an EU created problem.

If the UK are to trade with the EU they will have to agree to freedom of movement as before, absolutely no doubt about it so how does leaving the EU cure the immigration problem, simple it does not. Despite the noise from the idiots in UKIP and others most "normal" people knew this, at least thats what I believe and it would explain why London voted to stay.

The real issue is the bureaucracy and the overall, steady erosion of the democratic process and ability for the UK to effectively manage it's own affairs. Couple this with the obvious failing of the EU project right now and it's no wonder the UK voted to leave.

I for one wish they had stayed BUT completey acknowledge the EU needs serious and radical reform, and it needs it quickly. It cannot lumber around like a pregnant rhino any longer. The unemployment figures across many EU nations are frightening, young people out of work and no light at the end of the tunnel.

I think, hope and pray that the UK Brexit becomes the catalyst that sparks real change and reform.

[GAZZPA]

Until article 50 is executed, the UK is a member in the EU and as such it would be against protocol to entertain getting involved in the politics of one of it's members. Once article 50 is executed - and a date set for exit - that could change.

It is the same reason why the leaders of many western countries like the US and Canada stated that trade negotiations with an Independent UK would not be a priority because it could be seen as interfering in internal EU affairs to encourage separation. Once the referendum result was leave, the tone changed to one of engaging with an independent Uk if that is the will of the people.

The word sympathetic is a well chosen word, you can be sympathetic but still not encourage division within the UK while it is a member.

Could it really? Utter speculation. I want it that way therefore it is?

It is that way, why wouldn't it be? Why would any country not want to talk to the Worlds fifth biggest economy about trade deals?

[GAZZPA]

You are wrong. Scotland is not a member of the EU. It is a member of the UK, a region of the UK and has no entitlement to currently be a EU member.

If the UK leaves, Scotland, like other parts of the UK will leave, Should Scotland become an independent country, and that is a matter for the UK not Scotland, then it could at that point apply to join the EU. France, Spain in particular have made this very clear.

Right now Scotland is a region within the UK - therefore it is not entertained and is not appropriate to discuss. It is what I have been saying. The UK has indicated a referendum vote for separation is acceptable as a means to leave the United Kingdom (otherwise there never would have been a referendum). Once Scotland votes for independence it is no longer a region within another country and it becomes an equal which then discussions which were not appropriate become appropriate. If the UK had never entertained the option of referendum leading to independence -- then it would have been extremely difficult.

Circumstances change, what is not appropriate suddenly becomes appropriate. Until that time they are going to stick to that narrative.

If it happens after the UK notifies but before negotiations complete.... anything can happen.

The UK will not allow another Scottish referendum at this point. It is wholly inappropriate and not in anyones interests, including Scotland. First, the UK as a whole (which by the way comprises of England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales) need to knuckle down and get on with the job of planning the exit strategy and trade deals required that are in the best interests of all nations within the UK.

If someday down the road after this Scotland wants a referendum then I can see it being more likely.

[Lokie]

Back in the day she and the other lot of usurpers would be hung, drawn and quartered for Treason, they are part of the UK and the public have voted to leave, end of.

I loved Farage's speech in the EEC; you all laughed at me, well your not laughing now are you!

And the Scots, two years ago the Scottish Nationalist were touting that they would live of the oil revenue and cure all evils... Good job they lost that vote also then isn't it, they would have been in dire straights right now. The SNP are a pack of jokers and have less of a clue than some of the idiots down in Westminster.

Truth is people on the streets were fed up of Europe but the media seem slanted still towards the remain side of things... Ah well

[GAZZPA]

Back in the day she and the other lot of usurpers would be hung, drawn and quartered for Treason, they are part of the UK and the public have voted to leave, end of.

I loved Farage's speech in the EEC; you all laughed at me, well your not laughing now are you!

And the Scots, two years ago the Scottish Nationalist were touting that they would live of the oil revenue and cure all evils... Good job they lost that vote also then isn't it, they would have been in dire straights right now. The SNP are a pack of jokers and have less of a clue than some of the idiots down in Westminster.

Truth is people on the streets were fed up of Europe but the media seem slanted still towards the remain side of things... Ah well

For me Farage is a d*ck and UKIP is peppered with racist idiots, so it didn't matter what he said. He was just the noise on the right spouting his hatred.

The real issue is all about the EU failing and the gradual erosion of democracy and the UK losing effectiveness at managing its own affairs.

Simple as that.

Now the UK has to unite, the idiot Scottish politicians looking for any opportunity to attack the English (not the UK as a whole mind) need to shut up and actually become part of the leave process.

[Grouse]

That's not what I read, apparently they told her they wouldn't negotiate with her or Scotland, only the UK.

"Mariano Rajoy told a news conference following the European Council meeting in Brussels that the Scottish Government does not have the competence to negotiate with the European Union. He concluded: If the United Kingdom leaves... Scotland leaves too.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/29/nicola-sturgeons-hopes-of-keeping-scotland-in-eu-dashed-by-spani/

Well they would say that wouldn't they? However, if the Scots win an independence referendum, they will get in I think.

[Grouse]

Back in the day she and the other lot of usurpers would be hung, drawn and quartered for Treason, they are part of the UK and the public have voted to leave, end of.

I loved Farage's speech in the EEC; you all laughed at me, well your not laughing now are you!

And the Scots, two years ago the Scottish Nationalist were touting that they would live of the oil revenue and cure all evils... Good job they lost that vote also then isn't it, they would have been in dire straights right now. The SNP are a pack of jokers and have less of a clue than some of the idiots down in Westminster.

Truth is people on the streets were fed up of Europe but the media seem slanted still towards the remain side of things... Ah well

For me Farage is a d*ck and UKIP is peppered with racist idiots, so it didn't matter what he said. He was just the noise on the right spouting his hatred.

The real issue is all about the EU failing and the gradual erosion of democracy and the UK losing effectiveness at managing its own affairs.

Simple as that.

Now the UK has to unite, the idiot Scottish politicians looking for any opportunity to attack the English (not the UK as a whole mind) need to shut up and actually become part of the leave process.

I disagree with your last paragraph. The Scots get it and voted 65% to remain. They're social democrats basically and hate Westminster. Why would they support the English seething masses in their bid to leave the civilised continent?